The ever-researching Hilfskreuzer Möwe has sent me a link to a 12 month old NZ habeas corpus case for Graham Colin Rangitaawa aka Rangatira-Graham: Rangitaawa. The judgment is short enough to quote in full
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinod ... 013/4.html
Rangitaawa subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal. He lost again:IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY
CIV-2013-488-01  NZHC 4
BETWEEN GRAHAM COLIN RANGITAAWA Applicant
Hearing: On the Papers
(Heard at Auckland) Appearances: Applicant in person Judgment: 9 January 2013
JUDGMENT OF TOOGOOD J
This judgment was delivered by me on 9 January 2013 at 4:00 pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules
GC RANGITAAWA HC WHA CIV-2013-488-01 [9 January 2013]
 On 9 January 2013, the Registrar of the Court in Whangarei received a document headed:
DECLARED INDEPENDANCE [SIC] 1835
TE WHANAU RANGITAAWA O AOTEAROA INCORPORATION
It was dated 26 December 2012 but apparently signed on 30 December 2012 and was in the form of a letter addressed to the Deputy Registrar of the Court and sent by surface mail. The letter reads:
i/we rangatira graham rangitaawa make an application for HABEAS CORPUS subject to Habeas Corpus Act 1679 and 2001 in Article 39
Magna Carta: No man free shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined nor will we go send against him except by the loreful judgement of his peers or by the lore of the land.
Please find enclosed a previous copy of application filed in the District Court Dargaville also a Statutory Declaration declaring my Native Title as Natural Man of Aotearoa also in reference, details of the legal name to the artificial person GRAHAM COLIN RANGITAAWA CAPITALISE. i/we inform you that rangatira graham rangitaawa is not the person required to appear upon the subject matters schedule under adjournment to the Whangarei High Court date 4 February
URGENT 3 day response is required upon recieving this application
Rangatira graham rangitaana
 Along with the application was a statutory declaration, on a form issued by the Dargaville District Court, taken by a solicitor on 19 October 2012. The declaration reads:
I (title) rangatira graham rangitaawa
Of (address) 155 Victoria Street dargaville Aotearoa
Occupation KAITIAKI Date of Birth 28.10.1835
I do solemnly and sincerely declare that the above information and following statements to be true and correct. Declare ‘INDEPENDANCE’ under the SOVEREIGNS ORDER of NIU TIRENI AOTEROA that ORDER IS
HE WHAKAPUTANGA 1835.
TE TIRITI O WAITANGI 1840
NEW ZEALAND CONSTITUTION ACT 1846
NATIVE DISTRICTS REGULATIONS ACT 1858
NATIVE CIRCUIT COURT ACT 1858
TE TURE WHENUA ACT 1993 AND 1994
NATIVE TITLE ACT 2003
IN ORDER AND Declare CONTRA PROFORRENTUM, Maori text prevails over all other text AND Declare Privacy Act 1993 the provisions of the act.
I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the Oaths and Declarations Act 1957.
Signature rangatira graham rangitaawa.
Declared at Dargaville District Court this 19 day of October 2012. CJ Edward
Solicitor Whangarei District Court
 It appears the document may have been filed at Dargaville on 15 November 2012, together with other documents which are largely incomprehensible but which confirm that, despite assertions to the contrary in the letter received by the High Court today, the person signing himself as “rangatira. graham rangitaawa” is Graham Colin Rangitaawa.
 Although the document filed in this Court purports to be an application for a writ of habeas corpus, it is fundamentally defective in that it does not assert that the applicant is unlawfully detained or by whom. On that basis, the Registrar would have been entitled to reject the document.
 Applications for writs of habeas corpus under the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 should not be thwarted on technical procedural grounds, as is clear from the fact that the Court may consider an oral application and that no applicant may be disqualified for lack of capacity or standing. Further, there is no prescribed form for the making of an application under the Act. An application for a writ of habeas corpus under the Act is to be given precedence over all other matters before the High Court.
 There being no resident judge in Whangarei and the purported application having been received during the Court’s vacation, the matter was referred to me as Duty Judge. The member of the Registry staff dealing with the matter has informed me that information on the files of this Court and the District Court indicate that Mr Rangitaawa was sentenced by Judge de Ridder in the District Court at Dargaville on 9 December 2012 to 9 months imprisonment for refusing to provide a specimen of blood, that being his third offence of its kind. Mr Rangitaawa has appealed that conviction and the appeal is to be heard in this Court, in Whangarei, on 5 February 2013.
 I am informed also that Mr Rangitaawa has applied for bail pending the outcome of that appeal and that application is to be heard by a District Court Judge on 14 January 2013. The Court files indicate also that Mr Rangitaawa is also remanded in custody on charges of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and threatening to kill and that those matters are the subject of a callover on 14 February 2013.
 I have received from the Registry staff in Whangarei a copy of a warrant of commitment related to the conviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed in the Dargaville District Court on 12 December 2012. It appears to be in order and has been duly signed by the District Court Judge. I am satisfied therefore, that Mr Rangitaawa is detained in prison and that he would be entitled to make an application for a writ of habeas corpus under the Act. I propose to treat the letter received by the Registrar as such an application.
 Section 14(2) of the Act requires me to “enquire into the matters of fact and law” which might justify Mr Rangitaawa’s detention. Section 14(2)(a) of the Act provides, however, that the Judge hearing an application for a writ of habeas corpus is not entitled to call into question a conviction of an offence by a Court of competent jurisdiction. I am satisfied that the applicant is lawfully detained after having been sentenced to imprisonment and also after having been refused bail pursuant to his arrest on serious charges for which he is also before the Court.
 In the circumstances, the application is refused.
 Habeas Corpus Act 2001 s 7(2).
 Ibid s 7(4).
 Ibid s 7(7).
 Ibid s 9.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinod ... 013/2.html
In 2012 Rangitaawa had also been arrested for poaching shellfish. He was convicted and appealed to the High Court in 2013. His argument was run on strawman lines - "I am not the man you seek". He lost. Again.
This is interesting because Rangitaawa is now the second time I've seen aperson styling themselves Rangatira when adopting a FMOTL type of name. The first was the lovely William Murphy (viewtopic.php?f=47&t=9586). In Maori and other polynesian languages 'rangatira' or its cognates means a Chief or a noble. Seems a logical use if you are declaring yourself a sovereign citizen. I'm going to have to do a bit of digging through auslii/nzlii to see if there have been other cases.The case of Rangitaawa v Police was heard in the High Court in Whangarei on 3 May 2013. Mr Rangitaawa appealed charges under the Fisheries Act 1996, to which he had pleaded guilty in the District Court.
The Ministry for Primary Industries had charged “Graham Colin Rangitaawa” in respect of digging toheroa and Mr Rangitaawa agreed he was the person who was apprehended by fishery officers when he was digging the toheroa.
Mr Rangitaawa, however, argued that the person “Graham Colin Rangitaawa” was “… a dead fictitious foreign situs trust quasi corporation legal entity NOT the Sovereign soul flesh and blood living that I am.” The person “Graham Colin Rangitaawa” was located in birth records but nowhere else. The person found digging toheroa was “Rangitira-Graham: Rangitaawa”.
The Court found that “Graham Colin Rangitaawa” was one in the same person as “Rangitira-Graham: Rangitaawa” and that “even if there is a discrepancy between the name by which the appellant is commonly known and the name occurring in the information, the difference is immaterial because the man apprehended by the authorities is the same man as was dealt with by the District Court”.
Mr Rangitaawa also argued that he fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of Te Whanau Rangitaawa Hapu o Aotearoa Nu Tirani Tribal Society which had declared sovereignty and that “… the state has no legal jurisdiction or Sovereign authority justified in origin to hear this or any matter in Court”. The court dismissed this claim stating that Mr Rangitaawa is subject to fisheries legislation in the same way as every other citizen, and dismissed the appeal in totality.